Unfavourable Orders Can't Become Basis For Transfer Of Trial, Courts Must Curb Forum Hunting: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that, "judicial error is not synonymous with judicial partiality and hence mere passing of an unfavourable order, or even an order subsequently set aside by a superior Court, does not ipso facto establish a foundation for bias or prejudice."Justice Sumeet Goel said, "Litigants often misinterpret an adverse or unfavourable judicial order as an indication of inherent bias, leading to a proliferation of unfounded transfer applications that threaten the very stability of the legal process. It must be underscored that a Presiding Officer/trial Judge has to perform his duty and not to succumb to the pressure put by the litigant(s) by making callous allegations. He is not expected to show unnecessary sensitivity to such allegations and recuse himself from the case."The Court further explained that, Judicial Officers often function and discharge their duties in environment which is overloaded with various stakeholders, literally and figuratively, breathing down their necks. They may, at times, err, owing to tremendous strain, which can be remedied in multiple ways. However, to cast aspersions on or besmirch their judicial work due to a development/order, unacceptable or unpalatable to a litigant, therefore pleading for transfer of trial etc. by such litigant is plainly subterfuge and this could be the foundation in transfer of a case, it will well neigh yield anarchy in the adjudicatory process, it added. The judge highlighted that "unscrupulous litigants will indulge themselves in Court/forum hunting which tendency needs to be curbed with an iron hand. If such latitude is to be allowed to litigants, that they need not face the trial in a Court they do not feel comfortable in, it would lead to an infinite regress to find a conducive one."Frivolous Transfer Pleas Undermine Sanctity Of Judicial Process; Exemplary Costs Necessary To Deter AbuseThe Court added that, vexatious and virulent attempts by unscrupulous elements, aimed at misusing the process of law and Courts, ought to be detested. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempt(s) is not responded with firmness. "A litigant who misuses the process of law or take liberties with the truth should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should be discouraged not to venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency or indulgence. Exemplary costs, in such a situation are inevitable and necessary, so as to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is rather practiced in our Country, there is no premium on the truth. Mere Anxiety In Litigant's Mind Not Ground For TransferAdding a word of caution the Court said, a person making a plea for transfer is not required to demonstrate that justice will inevitably fail if trial. are not transferred. Such applicant has to only show the circumstances from which it can be inferred that the apprehension is a reasonable one, in the facts/circumstances of a given case. However, mere apprehension or imaginary anxiety in the minds of a litigant does not afford an occasion for transfer of the proceedings and rather, the averments ought to be substantiated by some cogent material, said the Court.The judge elucidated that the evidentiary threshold is further underscored by the legislative mandate under Section 408(3) read with Section 407(3) of the Cr.P.C., which requires the filing of a supporting affidavit, as a condition precedent. Furthermore, the legislative intent to preserve judicial continuity is reinforced by cost imposition mechanism as provided under Section 408(3) read with Section 407(7). Thus, the legislative intent is that the power of transfer is never reduced to a tool for 'forum shopping' but is reserved for cases where the impartiality of the trial is genuinely imperiled, it added.BackgroundThe petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 read with Section 447 BNSS, 2023, challenging the Sessions Court order dated 08.08.2025, which dismissed his application seeking transfer of a criminal complaint under Section 500 IPC.The complaint was filed in 2019 by Respondent, a pharmaceutical businessman and former District Governor of Rotary International, alleging that the petitioner—his rival candidate—had circulated false and defamatory communications claiming that the complainant was taken into custody, thereby damaging his reputation within Rotary International and society at large.Transfer ApplicationBefore the Sessions Court, the petitioner sought transfer of the case from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panchkula, alleging advanced age (around 88–89 years) and serious health ailments and inconvenience due to long-distance travel from Dehradun.Allegations of collusion between the trial court and the complainant was also made, it was also submitted that Magistrate was biased and had assured conviction.The High Court examined the scope of transfer powers...

Unfavourable Orders Can't Become Basis For Transfer Of Trial, Courts Must Curb Forum Hunting: Punjab & Haryana High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Unfavourable Orders Can't Become Basis For Transfer Of Trial, Courts Must Curb Forum Hunting: Punjab & Haryana High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers